Inspired by this post, I'd like to raise the topic here about the meaning of seeing the nature of mind. James Ford mentions the mystification of kensho. However, as long as "kensho" is considered some special experience, it is mystified. How can a sense of unity with every being or the entire world make a difference in our attachment to thoughts and emotions? In Shengyan's system the experience of unity is the second stage of three. But if you look at what Shangyan taught as the actual insight, does that sound clear or rather vague and mystical? How about the following descriptions:

Q: What does "not dwelling anywhere or on anything" mean? A: Not to dwell anywhere or on anything means not to dwell on good or evil, existence or non-existence, within or without or on the middle, nor on concentration nor dispersion, and neither to dwell on the void nor on the non-void. This is the meaning of "not dwelling anywhere or on anything". Just this alone is real abiding. This stage of achievement is also the non-abiding Mind, and the non-abiding Mind is the Buddha Mind.

Q: What is the non-abiding Mind like? A: The non-abiding Mind is not green, yellow, red or white. It is not long or short, nor does it come or go. It is not pure or impure, nor does it have birth or death. It is only deep and permanent stillness. This is the non-abiding Mind, which is also called the Original Body. The Original Body is the Buddha's Body, which is also called the Dharmakaya.(Treatise On Entering The Tao of Sudden Enlightenment)

And this one:

Those whose mind has transcendedExistence and non-existence and abides no more [in them],They’ve realized the meaning of conditioned existence,The profound absence of objectification. ...If one possesses a locus,One becomes attached or detached;But the great beings who’re devoid of locus,They have neither attachment nor detachment.(Sixty Stanzas of Reasoning, 1, 58)

And this:

"Everything is coming and going, and we just let things come up freely and let them go away freely. We don’t try to fight against our thoughts or any other mental condition, and we don’t try to interact with them, either. The intention is not to grasp what is coming up from your consciousness. We actually do nothing but let the things happening within the mind just flow."(Zazen instruction)

What if we were told that the nature of mind is that all experiences are impermanent? That's quite obvious, isn't it? Is there anything mystical about that?

Then the question is, why isn't that what is taught in Zen?

"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

The mystical aspect is this Kensho experience of recognizing your own mind as being, at its core, neither permanent nor non permanent or unborn. This experience is unnapproachable by logic, actually antithetical too it. I don't think we can remove the mystical from Kensho till it happens.

Astus wrote:What if we were told that the nature of mind is that all experiences are impermanent? That's quite obvious, isn't it? Is there anything mystical about that?

Not only all experiences, but everything: 'from the very beginning not a single thing exists'. Nothing has 'own nature', in other words, exists independently of other things, or of the act of being designated.

How is that not mystical?

However, as long as "kensho" is considered some special experience, it is mystified.

If it's not a special experience, why is there a Zen teaching? I think this is a misunderstanding of the intention behind 'nothing special'. The strategy is that the 'true nature' is not in some separate realm or other place, but is right here manifest in every moment, so to look for 'special experiences' is to separate oneself from it, and furthermore, 'what is looking' is also the subject of the search itself. But I don't think this ought to be interpreted, as it very often is, that every man-in-the street (a.k.a. 'putthajanna') is already enlightened. That is manifestly not the case.

'Mystical' is not 'vague' either. It is very precise and clear, but the subject is such that it is very hard to put into words. That is why it sounds vague to many people, especially those who have not had such experiences. In modern discourse 'mystical' is nearly always a pejorative term, which is a shame, because it might actually signify something profoundly meaningful, which I'm sure it does in the case of nearly all Zen literature.

Not to dwell anywhere or on anything means not to dwell on good or evil, existence or non-existence, within or without or on the middle, nor on concentration nor dispersion, and neither to dwell on the void nor on the non-void. This is the meaning of "not dwelling anywhere or on anything

You might think that is very straightforward, but recall that the nature of the tree from which the apple was taken in the Biblical genesis: it was the tree 'of the knowledge of good and evil'. I suggest the underlying meaning is the same. So to exist as a living being is 'to dwell on something' - it is to have an identity and ideas and opinions about what it good, what is bad, and so on. The act of renunciation involves rising above that or 'dying to the known'. But it is no small undertaking.

Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas

jeeprs wrote:'Mystical' is not 'vague' either. It is very precise and clear, but the subject is such that it is very hard to put into words.

Mystical, and the related word mystery, has always been connected to the concept of secrecy and hidden knowledge, therefore the meaning includes vague and difficult to understand. Just as you say, it is hard to put into words. And while it is common in a Christian and generally Western spiritual context to use "mystical" for a higher, divine knowledge, in Buddhism the expression for the highest realisation is "knowledge and vision of reality" (yathabhuta-jnana-darsana). It is not secret but apparent and as clear as day. As the original of the popular misquote goes:

"Bhikkhus, there are these three things that shine when exposed, not when concealed. What three? (1) The moon shines when exposed, not when concealed. (2) The sun shines when exposed, not when concealed. (3) The Dhamma and discipline proclaimed by the Tathagata shines when exposed, not when concealed. These are the three things that shine when exposed, not when concealed." (AN 3.131, tr. B. Bodhi)

If it's not a special experience, why is there a Zen teaching? I think this is a misunderstanding of the intention behind 'nothing special'.

What I'm emphasising with not being special is the directness (zhi/jiki 直) of Zen. As Bodhidharma says,

"If you seek direct understanding, don't hold on to any appearance whatsoever, and you'll succeed. I have no other advice. The sutras say, "All appearances are illusions." They have no fixed existence, no constant form. They're impermanent. Don't cling to appearances, and you'll be of one mind with the Buddha. The sutras say, "That which is free of all form is the buddha.""(Bloodstream Sermon, tr. Red Pine, p. 27; X1218p3c12-15)

It is the immediacy, the straightforwardness of the instruction that is the hallmark of Zen and the meaning of sudden enlightenment. Once the teaching is shrouded in technical terms and poetic nonsense it cannot function as a liberating method. On the contrary, it becomes a source of confusion.

recall that the nature of the tree from which the apple was taken in the Biblical genesis: it was the tree 'of the knowledge of good and evil'. I suggest the underlying meaning is the same. ... The act of renunciation involves rising above that or 'dying to the known'. But it is no small undertaking.

Good and evil in the Bible is based on divine law (obeying or disobeying God). In Buddhism it is based on intention. However, Huihai is not talking about abandoning morality but only abandoning reification and grasping. In the same text he writes:

"Wisdom is reached when you can discriminate between good and evil, as well as other dualities, but, grasping none of them, remain free." (X1223p19c6-7)

So, while in the Bible knowledge is evil, in Buddhism it is wisdom.

"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

Since the time Joshu uttered 'Mu" Buddhist practitioners have been very confused about this 'core'. Even if some were to see it, how might they explain it? It is not being or non-being. It transcends words and their meaning. It is not nothing, either. Yet, the masters of old perfectly realized the core. Because of it the Buddha held up a flower and blinked—Mahakashyapa smiled. It's truly amazing!

Thank you Koji. That was well defined. Astus I would only add that "This mind is Buddha" is also a good description of the core as it manifests in the moment. The finding of that core is the recognition that it has been part of the mundane experience of mind our whole life, just unrecognized. So it is the mystical unknown and the core of all mundane experience too.

Astus wrote:So, while in the Bible knowledge is evil, in Buddhism it is wisdom.

'Knowledge of good and evil' is in my view an analogy for the predicament of existence, although it might not have been interpreted that way by Christianity. It is a parable of the origin of egoic consciousness. (See Norman Fischer The Violence of Oneness.) Furthermore, the 'prajñā' of Buddhism is similar to the 'gnosis' of the Semitic faiths - in fact the particles 'gn-' and 'jñ-' are from a common root.

in Buddhism the expression for the highest realisation is "knowledge and vision of reality" (yathabhuta-jnana-darsana). It is not secret but apparent and as clear as day.

But they are not apparent to everybody. That is why you frequently find the expression:

These are those dharmas, bhikkhus, that are deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand, peaceful and sublime, beyond the sphere of reasoning, subtle, comprehensible only to the wise, which the Tathāgata, having realized for himself with direct knowledge, propounds to others...

(DN1 passim)

So it is not secret, but the seeing of it is obscured, as the texts say, by 'adventitious defilements'. That is why the path is the path of purification - because the ordinary worldling does not see what is clearly apparent to the Buddhas, due to the 'obscurations' in their own minds.

Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas

Perhaps, because sometimes those who can't see it do not understand the meaning of the story of the fish that heard of the thing called "the great ocean of truth".This fish who lived in the sea swam around and around the sea looking for that "Great Ocean of Truth".But he never found it, because all he ever saw was the sea he swam in, not that Great Ocean.Maybe his problem was that all he could see was what HE saw, he never saw the Great Ocean that everything he saw was in.Rather like not being able to see the forest for all the trees in the way?It's normal, not to see clearly .... often because what we think we see blurs our vision of what is actually there.It takes a lot of work to see clearly.And even if we do see clearly briefly, that doesn't mean we can see that clearly every day. That's even harder.

Shame on you Shakyamuni for setting the precedent of leaving home.Did you think it was not there-- in your wife's lovely face in your baby's laughter?Did you think you had to go elsewhere (simply) to find it? from - Judyth Collin The Layman's Lament From What Book, 1998, p. 52 Edited by Gary Gach

Astus wrote:What if we were told that the nature of mind is that all experiences are impermanent? That's quite obvious, isn't it? Is there anything mystical about that?

Then the question is, why isn't that what is taught in Zen?

Maybe because impermanence is not the nature of the mind, but only its appearance. Not to dwell on anything includes knowledge of impermanence.

Not to dwell anywhere or on anything means not to dwell on good or evil, existence or non-existence, within or without or on the middle, nor on concentration nor dispersion, and neither to dwell on the void nor on the non-void. This is the meaning of "not dwelling anywhere or on anything". Just this alone is real abiding.Why bother with impermanence if you have such a neat explanation which excludes everything without holding any exclusion?

oushi wrote:Why bother with impermanence if you have such a neat explanation which excludes everything without holding any exclusion?

Because unlike talking about an unseen "core", "it", or "ocean", saying that all phenomena are impermanent is easy to understand and confirm, and also it doesn't sound like implying some essence/substance one should find. Saying one shouldn't dwell on anything is good, however, it lacks the method to do that.

"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

oushi wrote:Why bother with impermanence if you have such a neat explanation which excludes everything without holding any exclusion?

Because unlike talking about an unseen "core", "it", or "ocean", saying that all phenomena are impermanent is easy to understand and confirm, and also it doesn't sound like implying some essence/substance one should find. Saying one shouldn't dwell on anything is good, however, it lacks the method to do that.

What is easier, understanding impermanence or no understanding? Certainly no understanding is prior to any understanding, and as it is effortless, there is nothing easier then it.

Once more:"Not to dwell anywhere or on anything means not to dwell on good or evil, existence or non-existence, within or without or on the middle, nor on concentration nor dispersion, and neither to dwell on the void nor on the non-void. This is the meaning of "not dwelling anywhere or on anything". Just this alone is real abiding."To understand something is to dwell on it. If you dwell on understanding of impermanence BAM! and you are confused needing to return to understanding of impermanence. How unstable, fragile and stressful it is. Not because impermanence is incorrect, but because nature of understanding is unstable, fragile and stressful.

oushi wrote:To understand something is to dwell on it. If you dwell on understanding of impermanence BAM! and you are confused needing to return to understanding of impermanence. How unstable, fragile and stressful it is. Not because impermanence is incorrect, but because nature of understanding is unstable, fragile and stressful.

If the instruction is "don't dwell on anything" or "don't understand anything" they can still be construed as conceptual objects, but unlike with impermanence, they are more difficult to comprehend thus giving way to incorrect application.

"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

oushi wrote:To understand something is to dwell on it. If you dwell on understanding of impermanence BAM! and you are confused needing to return to understanding of impermanence. How unstable, fragile and stressful it is. Not because impermanence is incorrect, but because nature of understanding is unstable, fragile and stressful.

If the instruction is "don't dwell on anything" or "don't understand anything" they can still be construed as conceptual objects, but unlike with impermanence, they are more difficult to comprehend thus giving way to incorrect application.

More or less difficult, both fails anyway. Why construct an object that is easier to comprehend? That would only make grasping easier. This quote you provided, about not dwelling, is ungraspable and makes everything ungraspable. That's the whole point, isn't it?Impermanence is limited, because it enables temporary grasping. Everything will decay for sure, but some things last longer, thus we are tempted to grasp on them.

oushi wrote:Why construct an object that is easier to comprehend? That would only make grasping easier. This quote you provided, about not dwelling, is ungraspable and makes everything ungraspable. That's the whole point, isn't it?Impermanence is limited, because it enables temporary grasping. Everything will decay for sure, but some things last longer, thus we are tempted to grasp on them.

When it is easy to comprehend it can serve as a guideline. Without understanding the teaching it's not possible to apply it and gain results. It'd be like listening to the Dharma in a foreign language you don't understand. What's the benefit of that?

Yes, the whole point is to attain a non-dwelling mind. When everything is accepted and understood to be impermanent there is nothing left to dwell on. However, if we were told only "not to dwell on anything" then we didn't know how. Still, they are both fine and I posited the simpler teaching of impermanence against mystical-sounding teachings as outlined in the OP.

We are already in the habit of grasping everything. Impermanence shows that it's no use to do so. Some things seem to last longer, but understanding that they end anyway leads to letting them go. And when impermanence is applied to our actual experience, then it happens from moment to moment, and even in the present there's nothing that could be held on to, thus we arrive at not dwelling.

"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

mys·ti·caladjective \ˈmis-ti-kəl\Definition of MYSTICAL1a : having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence.

But this mind is subtle and hard to see. It’s not the same as the sensual mind. Every I one wants to see this mind, and those who move their hands and feet by its light are as many as the grains of sand along the Ganges, but when you ask them, they can’t explain it. They’re like puppets. It’s theirs to use. Why don’t they see it?

The Buddha said people are deluded. This Is why when they act they fall into the river of endless rebirth. And when they try to get out they only sink deeper. And all because they don’t see their nature. If people weren’t deluded why would they ask about something right in front of them? Not one of them understands the movement of his own hands and feet. The Buddha wasn’t mistaken. Deluded people don’t know who they are. A Buddha and no one else know something so hard to fathom. Only the wise knows mind, this mind call nature, this mind called liberation. Neither life nor death can restrain this mind. Nothing can. It’s also called the Unstoppable Tathagata," the Incomprehensible, the Sacred Self, the Immortal, the Great Sage. Its names vary but not its essence.

The Buddha is your real body, your original mind. This mind has no form or characteristics, no cause or effect, no tendons or bones. It’s like space. You can’t hold it. Its not the mind or materialists or nihilists. Except for a Tathagata, no one else- no mortal, no deluded being-can fathom it.

Was Bodhidharma wrong when he said it's hard to see, hard to fathom?

If it is not mystical, then how can a person hear 20 dharma talks about it, read 20 books about it, and still not experience it? If it is readily apparent and obvious, they should experience it after only 1 dharma talk yes? Or after only reading 1 book about it. But, that is highly unusual!

People hear the words "don't dwell on anything" and they say ok, that sounds good. I agree! Then they turn around and dwell on most everything. Why?

There are people who have been working on the Mu koan (or insert whatever koan here) for 20 years and still haven't got it. How can this be the case if it's readily apparent and obvious?

One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!

Astus,People found a workaround. It's called carpe diem. If everything is impermanent (and even science proves it is) lets enjoy the moment. This creates even greater desire and grasping. Ateists are perfectly aware that everything is impermanent. Life end, galaxies collapse, theories change... there is nothing permanent for non religious people. Still, they are far from awakening.

And when impermanence is applied[...]

Fake it until you make it. It may work, who knows...? But as you see, it can be evaded. It is much harder to evade the teaching about not dwelling.

seeker242 wrote:There are people who have been working on the Mu koan (or insert whatever koan here) for 20 years and still haven't got it. How can this be the case if it's readily apparent and obvious?

Because it is not obvious, nor opposite of being obvious. It is so close that you cannot get there. How far west do you need to go, to find west?

seeker242 wrote:Was Bodhidharma wrong when he said it's hard to see, hard to fathom?

If it is not mystical, then how can a person hear 20 dharma talks about it, read 20 books about it, and still not experience it? If it is readily apparent and obvious, they should experience it after only 1 dharma talk yes? Or after only reading 1 book about it. But, that is highly unusual!

People hear the words "don't dwell on anything" and they say ok, that sounds good. I agree! Then they turn around and dwell on most everything. Why?There are people who have been working on the Mu koan (or insert whatever koan here) for 20 years and still haven't got it. How can this be the case if it's readily apparent and obvious?

It all comes down to correct view and correct motivation. If one has the wrong motivation it is not possible to hear, understand and confirm the teachings. If one has wrong view, it is not possible to attain liberation. Motivation depends on one's personal background and then it is developed by the view. The view depends on the teachings received.

If a teacher can give the right teachings in an appropriate manner to a receptive student, there is no problem in getting results. You can look at the many sutras where the Buddha could help so many people. Huineng, Mazu and several other teachers of the Zen tradition helped hundreds of people attain sudden enlightenment.

If someone hears the teachings but fails to apply it, that is the lack of motivation. If someone hears only incomplete and misleading teachings, it results in the lack of correct view.

"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

oushi wrote:People found a workaround. It's called carpe diem. If everything is impermanent (and even science proves it is) lets enjoy the moment.

That is not the understanding of impermanence. When one thinks only about enjoying different sorts of pleasures then one believes the abiding existence of oneself, the object and even of pleasure. That is seeking happiness in pleasure. To see that pleasure is changing and lost every moment shows that it is not reliable, not a source of satisfaction, and attachment to it results in pain and sorrow.

"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

oushi wrote:People found a workaround. It's called carpe diem. If everything is impermanent (and even science proves it is) lets enjoy the moment.

That is not the understanding of impermanence. When one thinks only about enjoying different sorts of pleasures then one believes the abiding existence of oneself, the object and even of pleasure. That is seeking happiness in pleasure. To see that pleasure is changing and lost every moment shows that it is not reliable, not a source of satisfaction, and attachment to it results in pain and sorrow.

1. Show me in which point carpe diem refers to permanence. It doesn't, because it doesn't have to. As I said, for atheists there is nothing permanent, and still they fall into ignorance.2. In one hand you promote impermanence, and in the other you rebuke pleasure because it changes. If everything is impermanent what is a reliable source of satisfaction?

Impermanence is very useful if we apply it to the goal of the whole life. Still, that will not refute carpe diem. Impermanence needs to go hand in hand with Anatta and Dukkha refute it. In a long run it will become a view and then we can ask, is impermanence permanent?